November 10, 2010

Lt. Gov. Craig Campbell, who oversees Alaska elections, has indicated that he will accept minor misspellings of Murkowski's name as long as the "voter intent" is clear.

Intent of the voter. Ah! That brings back delightful memories of the Bush v. Gore recount.

Miller is overdoing it. Clearly, they've got to count stuff like "Murakowski" and "Murkowsky" and "Murcowski" and even "Mercowsky." But where's the line? What about "Merssky"? Or "Murk."? What about "Lisa"? That's dimpled chad territory, no?

ADDED: A poll:

How strictly would you judge the write-ins?

Miller's right. The spelling must be perfect.

It must be phonetically accurate or only 1 or 2 letters off.

If you can tell it was meant as a vote for Murkowski, it should count.

They should demand 100% accuracy. Murkowski went to court and won the right to have her name, properly spelled, available to voters at the polling places on slips of paper that the voter could take into the booth.

It is not the job of the elections board to decide voter intent for a group of people who were too lazy to look at the piece of paper and copy the letters.

As Patterico explains, Miller has evidence that misspellings of Lisa M's name may have been intentional as a vote against her.

Miller has another argument that is interesting:

Prior to the election, people commented on radio stations and in the comment sections in blogs and newspaper stories that they would deliberately incorrectly write-in a variation of “Murkowski” as a protest. They did so knowing that Murkowski was spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a “spelling bee” campaign, replete with wrist bands, pencils and tattoos, all to educate the voters on proper spelling. Why was this done? Because even Murkowski had read the law and knew that it required proper spelling — “No exceptions.” So protest voters were trying to send a message to the candidate.

If you present yourself as a populist, it is sometimes necessary to listen to the will of the people. It will not make either Miller or Palin look good if they go the legalistic route on this......They should have found a candidate named Murkewski and entered him as a write in candidate. Too late now. Miller lost.

This is absurd. From all I've read, Alaska law says the name must be spelled correctly to count. That should be the end of the matter. Last week, someone in Alaska announced that if any of the write-in votes were for Miller, they wouldn't count even if they were spelled correctly.

Sounds like a "heads I win, tails you lose" situation. They're saying a valid write in vote for Miller won't count but a lawfully invalid write in for Murkowski should?

I agree that the state needs to follow the law as written, and that if the candidates' positions were reversed the incumbent would be making the same argument.

But this is not the way Miller should win. It's just going to cause more trouble later.

We had a similar problem in Washington when Gregoire beat Rossi after the third recount by a few hundred votes in a election where boxes of votes would mysteriously turn up days later. It's not quite fair to Gregoire, but a lot of people saw it as she demanded recounts until she got the result she wanted. There's still a lot of bad feeling about it.

According to the article, the applicable statute provides: "A vote for a write-in candidate ... shall be counted if the oval is filled in for that candidate and if the name, as it appears on the write-in declaration of candidacy, of the candidate or the last name of the candidate is written in the space provided."

So the statute requires, at a minimum, that for a write-in vote to be "counted," the "last name" of the candidate "as it appears on the write-in declaration of candidacy" must be "written in the space provided." That provides an objective standard -- compare what's "written in the space provided" with the "declaration of candidacy." If there's a match (which is not the same thing as a sort-of or mostly match), the vote counts; if not, then it doesn't.

I assume that Alaska law provides that a court will defer to administrative constructions of statutory language so long as they are reasonable. But here the statutory language is clear -- it requires a "match" between two objectively determinable things. An administrative construction that replaces a "match" with a "close enough" standard seems to conflict with the statute, and thus should be rejected.

So I think Miller is probably right. But that doesn't mean he will probably win, either in court or in the election.

Please answer the following: What does Alaska law say about this? I don't really care what is fair or not. We are, or at least should be, a nation of laws. So what is the law? It certainly looks to me like misspellings don't count, because the name is not what was submitted. Is this or is this not an incorrect reading of the law?

I was perfectly willing to accept obvious intent (how misspelled would "Lisa Murkowski" have to be not to obviously be a vote for Lisa Murkowski?) but I now agree with TRO and others - if the law, as it currently stands, demands accurate spelling, then so be it.

If the law says the name must be spelled correctly, more fool Leela Mercurochrome - or whatever her name is - for not getting the importance of that fact out to her supporters in advance of election day. Did she not know of this law? The law may not be 'fair', by rule of law beats rule of the whim of packs of feral lawyers.

Tschebyshev is a data retrieval nightmare. Unfortunately there is a lot of stuff with his name on it.

Also difficult: Moamar Khaddafi.

@t-man:

Ask Gregoire if she would give up the power of the governorship to assuage those bad feelings.

I don't have to, she ran again and was reelected, so she clearly didn't think the bad feelings were that important.

I'm not saying that Miller should give up the governorship, and he after all has the law on his side, not that that matters with judges today.

All I'm saying is that when elections are decided by pettifogging applications of rules, it can be a Pyrrhic victory.

It is pretty sleazy of Murkowsky to demand that misspellings of her name count, but that write-in votes for her opponent don't. The law should be followed in both cases, or voter intent should be judged in both cases.

And can Lisa Merkowski sue if a vote for her is counted as a vote for Lisa Murkowski? A printed copy of registered candidates names with their correct spellings was provided at the polling place, so certainly a vote with an alternate spelling of 'Murkowski' could, in fact, be a vote for an unregistered someone else, right?

I have a very foreign last name it was always used to "single" me out no matter where I went, what country I lived in-and I was always addressed by it or some butchering of it.

It's why I am horrified to call Althouse, Althouse I see it as negative.

Anyways-no one ever spelled my name correctly.

Hey! This one way to keep the divisions!

I think it's going to be at some point a bad move for Miller-from the supposed "grass roots" party to legally fight voter intent.

Now where's the line-for non WASP named persons...well the spellings get pretty damn bad...

Did they preface it with Lisa?

How many other Lisas where there?

I think it was ZERO.

After what I found out about this guy, written in his own hand about how he went in early to work to vote from his fellow employees computers so that they could take the fall for what he was doing and that he lied and lied again about it-well...

And then he used the law to try to block that.

This guy graduated from West Point somehow without learning the important thing.

What he did I'd never tolerate from a high schooler but there he was a full grown adult, graduate of West Point slinking around during lunch hour.

Creepy.

And no one in the "Tea Party Networks" thought their audience had a right to know about it.

Having watched the completely bogus crap that was called the Florida recount, I have to come down on the side of not granting politically motivated poll workers any latitude. The law says spell it right? Then follow the law.

Over time, as new states were formed from federal territories, these territorial reception statutes became obsolete and were re-enacted as state law. For example, a reception statute enacted by legislation in the state of Washington requires that "[t]he common law, so far as it is not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States, or of the state of Washington nor incompatible with the institutions and condition of society in this state, shall be the rule of decision in all the courts of this state." In this way, the common law was eventually incorporated into the legal systems of every state except Louisiana (which inherited a civil law system from its French colonizers before the Louisiana Purchase of 1803, adopting a code similar to but not directly based on the Napoleonic Code of 1804).

I guess you could argue that if common law trumps statute law then reception statutes are invalid, but if they are invalid then common law isn't the received law.

It should be the second choice, but after all the dirty tricks and shenanigans Princess Murky has pulled I feel no sympathy. She who lives by the dirty political trick dies by the dirty political trick.

She who lives by the dirty political trick dies by the dirty political trick.

It's not a "dirty trick" to run as a write-in after losing a primary. It's dirty to expect to get the legal advantages of a party nomination after losing the primary.

Like it or not, the two-party system gives the two parties huge advantages, but they should only extend to people who followed the rules of the two-party system and actually got nominated by one of them.

Common law, i.e. judge-made law, fills in the gaps in our legal system. Ask Lilly Ledbetter -- the statute was supposed to help people in her situation but the Supreme Court read a requirement into it that ended up denying her relief.

The legislature (Congress) then explicitly clarified their intention, but it was too late to help Ledbetter.

Like it or not, the two-party system gives the two parties huge advantages, but they should only extend to people who followed the rules of the two-party system and actually got nominated by one of them.

What is this "two-party system"? The Constitution says nothing about a two party system, nor was there a two-party system at the time of the Framers.

The strange requirement of a correct spelling or a vote not counting was likely inserted to discourage write ins and also put a quick stop to any fights over counting mis-spelled write in ballots. So what changed?

What is this "two-party system"? The Constitution says nothing about a two party system, nor was there a two-party system at the time of the Framers.

Do you really want to play "Where is that in the Constitution?" Where does it say murder and theft are illegal in the Constitution?

You really are stupid. This is not a game with you, this is HOW YOU ARE. I am finally getting it.

The Constitution, dumbass, does not provide every possible law that governs our society. Additional laws, consistent with the priniciples of the Constitution, may be made at any time by bodies called "legislatures" and "Congress", and in addition may be expounded, informed and interpreted according to "legal precedents" by officials called "judges".

The Constitution says nothing about a two party system, nor was there a two-party system at the time of the Framers.

Here you go dumbass, Article I section 4:

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Chusing Senators.

So a two party system is perfectly legal and Constitutional. Assmonkey.

Where does it say that legislatures can privilege certain candidates (those that have won a party's nomination) over other candidates that have not? Further, where does it say that legislatures can privilege some candidates (with easy-to-spell names) over other candidates (with hard to spell names)?

1) The law is what the law is. Period. Full stop. If the law requires correct spelling, there is no argument: except by those who think they are above it.

2) The courts ALREADY put their thumb on the scale in Murkowski's favor by allowing the list of write-in candidates. The whole POINT of winning a primary is that your name will appear on the ballot, and that the losers will not. The Alaskan courts essentially said that they don't care what the electoral process is: they will change the rules to suit their whims accordingly.

3) The Alaskan government FURTHER put its thumb on the scale in favor of Murkowski by declaring that write-in votes for Miller will not count. If the standard is "will of the voter," then there is NO justification for not counting Miller write-ins. If it's NOT "will of the voter," then misspellings of Murkowski CANNOT count. They've already said that the "will of the voter" will be ignored if it is for Miller. Therefore, fairness (and the law, incidentally) demands that misspellings do not count either.

This clause generally commits to the States the authority to determine the "times, places and manner of holding elections," which includes the preliminary stages of the election process (such as a primary election), while reserving to Congress the authority to preempt State regulations with uniform national rules. Congress has exercised this authority to determine a uniform date for federal elections: the Tuesday following the first Monday in November.

Because Congress has not enacted any on-point regulations, States still retain the authority to regulate the dates on which other aspects of the election process are held (registration, primary elections, etc.) and where elections will be held. As for regulating the "manner" of elections, the Supreme Court has interpreted this to mean "matters like notices, registration, supervision of voting, protection of voters, prevention of fraud and corrupt practices, counting of votes, duties of inspectors and canvassers, and making and publication of election returns." The Supreme Court has held that States may not exercise their power to determine the "manner" of holding elections to impose term limits on their congressional delegation.

One of the most significant ways that States regulate the "manner" of elections is their power to draw election districts. Although in theory Congress could draw the district map for each State,[48] it has not exercised this level of oversight. Congress has, however, required the States to conform to certain practices when drawing districts. States are currently required to use a single-member district scheme, whereby the State is divided into as many election districts for Representatives in the House of Representatives as the size of its representation in that body (that is to say, Representatives cannot be elected at-large from the whole State unless the State has only one Representative in the House, nor can districts elect more than 1 Representative).

You go on about common law and precedent, and then in the very same thread to demand to see explicit descriptions in the Constitution for legitimate laws?

"The strange requirement of a correct spelling or a vote not counting was likely inserted to discourage write ins and also put a quick stop to any fights over counting mis-spelled write in ballots. So what changed?"

If statutes don't take precedence over common law then why do we have legislatures?

So he argues that the exact letter of the statute should prevail.

But then he quotes an article that demonstrates that judges really decide what the states are allowed to do:

As for regulating the "manner" of elections, the Supreme Court has interpreted this to mean "matters like notices, registration, supervision of voting, protection of voters, prevention of fraud and corrupt practices, counting of votes, duties of inspectors and canvassers, and making and publication of election returns." The Supreme Court has held that States may not exercise their power to determine the "manner" of holding elections to impose term limits on their congressional delegation.

So ultimately the Supreme Court could decide if Lissa Mercowsky is Senator or not.

I agree that the written law governs, and you can read the text in the article:

"A vote for a write-in candidate, other than a write-in vote for governor and lieutenant governor, shall be counted if the oval is filled in for that candidate and if the name, as it appears on the write-in declaration of candidacy, of the candidate or the last name of the candidate is written in the space provided."

One question that's kind of germane here is the lengths to which the law goes generally to recognize intent. I'm thinking of situations where, "I didn't mean for anybody to get hurt", (or similar defenses) is not considered a valid argument.

Or is this something dictated by the political and philosophical attitudes of the judge (or Justice) in question?

Ah, you were pretending to be ignorant and stupid so you could play gotcha--it was a fiendishly clever gambit.

Keep digging, you'll get out sooner or later.

But then he quotes an article that demonstrates that judges really decide what the states are allowed to do:

It demonstrates no such thing. You can't read, but other people can. There's no point in lying about what the article said.

Legislation, judges, common law and the Constitution are all sources of law, as you yourself acknowledge. And those sources of law all agree that the two party system is legal and Consitutional, despite your astonishingly stupid remark, your pathetic post facto justifications of which make you look stupid.

Further, where does it say that legislatures can privilege some candidates (with easy-to-spell names) over other candidates (with hard to spell names)?

How is she disadvantaged when voters had a sheet of paper with her name spelled properly as a cheat sheet??? I mean, really. Also, count me with those who don't think Murkowski is all that hard to spell. It's not like she is some random person who came out of nowhere, she is the sitting senator and somebody said she is a legacy as well. So the voters should be at least somewhat familiar with the name.

PS Hanna, fls has a point. The Constitution is set up in such a way (Electoral College) that a two-party system is the most likely outcome (what I was taught 50 years ago), but nowhere is it mandated.

It's not Constitutionally mandated, but that's not what fls was getting at. It's established by the laws of most states (mine is an exception) and is consistent with the Constitution.

The requirement to buy auto insurance isn't in the Constitution, nor is the requirement to have a license to drive--lots of stuff isn't in there. Doesn't mean it's not legal or somehow invalid, as fls would be the first to agree on different subjects. But he made such a big deal of it not being in the Constitution and not intended by the Framers--well, that doesn't matter. We have lots of laws that aren't in the Constitution and weren't intended by the Framers, but laws are laws for a' that.

I'm a little bit sympathetic to those who wrote "Merkowsi" and think it should count, but for election laws even more than laws in general, it is important that the rules be known in advanced (and not changed part-way through) and that the people executing the laws have as little discretion as practical.

If an election is very close and it ends up being determined by an act of randomness, I don't mind that terribly -- if one candidate gets a million votes and another gets a million plus five, either would represent the district pretty much equally well. But if an election official can swing the vote count by hundreds or thousands of votes by the interpretation they bring to the table, that's more of a problem. It's not that the candidate with slightly fewer valid votes is a significantly worse representative than the candidate with slightly more; it's just that the elections judges shouldn't have that power.

At the time I voted, what I was thinking was that one could apply the Soundex algorithm to any name that did not match "Murkowski" letter for letter. Soundex is a well-understood algorithm capable of yielding an objective result.

But then I read the comments and TRO and Superdad right at the top of the thread reminded me that the law is what it is. The downside risk of "extending" the law is so dangerous that it should not be contemplated for a moment.

Much further along in the thread Gabriel Hanna (Hana? Henna? Xhena?) makes another valid point. After all, nowhere in the Constitution does it say that one cannot fly directly over the Presidential Mansion because flying machines had not yet been invented.

But I wouldn't charter a Cessna and intrude in the White House restricted air space to test some sort of Consitutional theory if I was you.

The problem is the very limited set of characters in the character-set used on ballots. Obviously, we have to use "approximations" for Arabic, Chinese and Polish names.

This reminds me of the discussion people had when the Chinese or Indians "changed the spelling of their capital." Think Peking and Bombay.

I'm surprised no one has suggested any issue with Murkowska - the female form of the name usually spelled ...wski or ...wsky and frequently shortened to ...ski in the interest of American's limited abilities.

I mean, really. Also, count me with those who don't think Murkowski is all that hard to spell. It's not like she is some random person who came out of nowhere, she is the sitting senator and somebody said she is a legacy as well. So the voters should be at least somewhat familiar with the name.

In a perfect world, sure, but there are plenty of legitimate reasons misspellings happen, and to just a list a few: dyslexia, simple transposing of letters, laziness, English not being their native language, etc. So with that, I think, A's So we're talking about what it means for "the name" to be "written." has merit.

On a personal note, my husband's last name is quite common and quite Anglo (think, some variation of ET's pal). I will swear to you that even when passing the name along, in written form to people we have never met before (and at time from a department that he's worked at for 30 years), 9 times out of 10 it comes back spelled incorrectly. You're right, it's not that hard, but it happens - and it seems reasonable to have some leeway.

If people really want to vote for Murkowski the least they can do is learn how to spell her name.

People spell FT's old home as "Tuscon" half the time, but the mail gets delivered anyways. Just ask anyone who lives in Forth Worth. And Tuscon is over 300 years old -- more than enough time to get the spelling right.

Because Murkowski demanded that elections officials hand out those lists of "official" write-in candidates, then the requirement should be that the name must match 100 percent exactly what was written on the list.

If not, then handing out those lists amounted to a campaign contribution by the state to Murkowski since no literature of the people on the ballot was handed out.

I'll grant you that the law is what it is-if that's specifically spelled out somewhere.

However, in determining voter intent to equate a dimpled chad to someone writing in Lisa Murkoski* is disingenuous to say the least.

You know good and well what the voter's intent was to pretend like you don't just because they left one letter out is Sean Penn performance worthy.

You are better off sticking with the 'letter of the law" .

The other side of this is common sense tells you what the voter's intent was using the 'letter of the law" to disenfranchise voters for one letter missing is not a long term winner for Miller in my opinion.

Murkowski should have made up a jingle. I can still remember the phone number for Empire Carpet from the commercials I saw 25 years ago. Anyone in living in the Chicago/Milwaukee area in the 80's and 90's sing along: "5 8 8 2 300. Empire."

In a perfect world, sure, but there are plenty of legitimate reasons misspellings happen, and to just a list a few: dyslexia, simple transposing of letters, laziness, English not being their native language, etc.

I voted in the poll for a letter or two off for just that reason. But when you allow leeway, you tend to get people counting with partisan intent, so I am leery of anything more than that. There should be a clear standard, and if the law says “spell it correctly” then that has to be it, right? Plus, there was a sheet of paper with her name on it. Voting is serious business. I am sure they make provisions for people who are illiterate, perhaps they could make accommodations for those who are dyslexic/non-native speaker/etc..?

OK, so the law is not "perfectly" clear. It then comes down to an Alaskan court decision, for which the practice in previous Alaskan elections with write in candidates set the precedents, and if there are none, the judge(s) presumably would look for precedents in the elections of other U.S. states.

Do you figure they would count Lisa Murderedmycow, but not Lisa Goredmyox?

My last name is a 3-lettered noun in English. A first grader would spell it correctly on a vocabulary test. I'm so frequently asked to spell it, however, that by now I just say the name and immediately spell it when someone needs to write it down. Friends spell it wrong; Organization directories get it wrong. My brother had trophies engraved with wrong spellings. All I'm saying is that people of good will commonly spell names wrong.

Didn't that Minnelli woman have a TV concert called "Liza with a Z" in which she bemoaned in one song that everyone spelled her name wrong?

Voting is not a spelling contest. But that doesn't mean the law should be ignored.

Around here we're allowed to take voting guides, etc. into the voting booth. Is that different in Alaska? In which case, if someone wanted to spell her name right they should have brought in something with her name on it into the voting booth.

The exact spelling thing should be followed, not least because if it isn't it raises the appearance of extreme bias, as it was likely created to ward off some specific instance of misspelling for a less connected candidate.

Your faux hurt feelings are sustaining me. Please continue with the theatrics. Besides, you can be an elitist without making fun of the tea partiers, as you well know. Accusations from someone who likely voted for the party with the infinitely elitist superdelegate mechnism reeks of humor.

Miller's name is on the ballot -- did he also run a write-in campaign?

If the voter put Miller in as a write in candidate (and spelled his name correctly), when why shouldn't that vote count? They clearly indicated they intended to vote for Miller and spelled his name correctly. Murkowski is trying to skirt the legal requirement for her name to be spelled correctly. That's opening up the vote to the same "hanging chad" mischief that Gore tried to pull in Florida back in 2000. If that is allowed, how incorrect could the spelling be and still count? Could a write in vote for Miller be counted for Murkowski because they "obviously" intended to vote for the write in candidate?

You know good and well what the voter's intent was to pretend like you don't just because they left one letter out is Sean Penn performance worthy.

If one, why not two? If two, why not three? If three, why not four? If four, why not five? If five, why not six? If six, why not seven?

If seven, what distinguishes the names "Miller" and "Murkowski"?

Here's a radical suggestion: why not obey the law? It is easier to remember. Oh, sure, it has the downside of not giving people with political connections an advantage over everybody else, but sometimes democracy requires we make those little sacrifices. "I know it when I see it" is a stupid enough standard when judges use it in obscenity trials. As a method for determining our elected representatives, it is even worse.

wv unables: the class of people incapable of spelling a name even when it is written down in front of them

Miller is right to insist on perfection because that's his best chance to win. If compliance with the law or fairness to Murkowski is the goal, then Miller's perfection standard should apply (that is a reasonable consequence of Murkowski's demand for a voter guide).

If, however, fairness to the voter is the goal (and it should be), then any reasonably phonetic facsimile should be acceptable.

But what if the approximate spelling of Murkowski is the correct spelling of some other adult Alaskan? Then what? It seems to me that, no matter how liberal a standard is used, Murkowski should not get any vote that is actually another person.

If, however, fairness to the voter is the goal (and it should be), then any reasonably phonetic facsimile should be acceptable.

By "fair", do you mean "having rules simple enough for a 12 year old to follow, and applying them uniformly to everybody"?

Or do you mean "give special treatment to the people who showed up at the polls but are too stupid to follow directions, but NOT give any consideration to the people who forgot to vote, didn't have time to vote, simply couldn't get to the polls in time, cast a write-in ballot and then changed their minds, or otherwise fell victim to any of the countless problems that could cause a person to not successfully case a vote?"

Just so everyone here is clear. In Alaska, you have to apply to be a formal write-in candidate which makes you eligible to get write-in votes. Over 100 people did that - at least one other was named Lisa M also.

Tim: you were joking with your comment about accepting "phonetic" spellings?

To those questioning me about the statutory text, I quoted it, requiring the name to be written "as appears on the write-in declaration of candidacy, of the candidate or the last name of the candidate." Why are you (and Patterico) pretending not to see the material after the "or"? "As it appears" could be interpreted to require 100% correct spelling, but "the last name" seems pretty forgiving. You don't need to do anything more than have "the last name."

Also, if the Usual Leftist Suspects are worked up in defense of Our Lady of Murkwood, then I'm against her.

Seriously, guys; if she pulls it out she's going to caucus with the Republicans, and she's not going to want to go through this crapola again is six years. Do you REALLY thinks she's going to be significantly better for Obama than an outsider freshman Senator? Are you really that consumed by PDS?

If Sarah Palin weren't so busy schooling Ben Bernanke and the Wall Street Journal about complex monetary policies, quantitative easing, open market operations, and food prices, she could step in here and show her natural born leadership skills.

Well, the wording of the statue is poor, but I think it requires the last name of the candidate to match how "it appears on the write-in declaration of candidacy". I don't see why the full name would have to match but, if only the last name appears, it doesn't have to match.

As the statute is written you can't count candidates that did not file before the deadline as write-in candidates.

Unfortunately Politico can't be bothered to quote Campbell directly, but the AP did.

Campbell, who oversees elections, tells The Associated Press that because Miller's name isn't on the official list of write-in candidates, any ballots with "Joe Miller" written in won't be credited to the tea party favorite.

******

(11) A vote for a write-in candidate, other than a write-in vote for governor and lieutenant governor, shall be counted if the oval is filled in for that candidate and if the name, as it appears on the write-in declaration of candidacy, of the candidate or the last name of the candidate is written in the space provided.

(12) If the write-in vote is for governor and lieutenant governor, the vote shall be counted if the oval is filled in and the names, as they appear on the write-in declaration of candidacy, of the candidates for governor and lieutenant governor or the last names of the candidates for governor and lieutenant governor, or the name, as it appears on the write-in declaration of candidacy, of the candidate for governor or the last name of the candidate for governor is written in the space provided.

(b) The rules set out in this section are mandatory and there are no exceptions to them. A ballot may not be counted unless marked in compliance with these rules.

A lot of us don't support the incumbent Republicans. Clearing out the corrupt Repubs is just as, if not more, important than opposing the Obama agenda.

Agreed. I just find it amusing that FLS, Garage, RV, etc. even have an opinion here, and that it is so monolithically in support of the Corrupt Republican over the Outsider Republican. Or maybe I'm not so surprised.

I'd be interested to know, at the end of the day, how many (if any) write in votes went to Miller. If the amount is more than a handful, in the future the smart candidate will register as a write-in (as well as being on the ballot proper), just in case he needs a few hundred extra votes in a close election.

using the 'letter of the law" to disenfranchise voters for one letter missing is not a long term winner for Miller in my opinion.

So... is using "the letter of the law" to "disenfranchise" people who cast write-in votes for Miller a long-term winner for Murkowski?

Just curious.

You see, that's what people win when they talk about "heads I win, tails you lose". The court appears to be following the letter of the law when it hurts Miller, and "common sense" when it helps Murkowski.

FWIW, the letter of the law seems to indicate that any ballot that misspells Murkowski's name is a null vote. Having said that, I voted in the poll that being real close should be good enough.

I'm torn between the strict legalism (which obviously is a valid approach) and the principal of protecting the franchise of voters making an honest mistake.

What galls me, of course, is that the ruling class of which Murkowski considers herself a permanent member really feels above petty things like laws, let alone rules or honor. So if she wins, I'll consider it a loss for the common citizen, even while respecting the common citizen's right to step forward and say "thank you ma'am may I have another!"

Hmmm so If a write-in vote is for Miller, they dishonor the intent of the voter by not allowing it.

But if they misspell Murkowski's name, they honor the intent of the voter.

Seems contradictory to me when they follow the law in one case [Miller failed to register as a write-in candidate] and don't follow it another [accepting misspelled ballots contra what the law states].

What is happening is Miller's lawyers are arguing from both sides of their mouths.

One minute they want the letter of the law, next they want Miller write-ins counted.

That was my point.

************************

Just to add to it all-if you get into the muddy details of it-how do you know that those ballots aren't over votes?

Or a vote where it was counted automatically by machine for Miller?

In other words the voter filled in the Republican candidate slot, it was counted by machine then it gets sorted out visually for the write-in ballot.

You could see where a voter wanted to make sure that his vote counted and would write-in his candidate that was automatically on the ballot.

You would have to make sure that those votes weren't counted twice.

An over vote is something different that would be where the voter filled in for one candidate in the party lines and then wrote in for someone else.

There's no way to count that.

You also have this beaut from the Miller campaign his lawyer in the filing actually made the argument that the misspelled votes were "protest votes" and then goes on to say that it's the Alaska election officials making a "mockery" of the electoral process.

So just to get this straight-Miller asserts that people wanting to protest Murkowski-instead of voting for him-wasted their vote and then purposefully did a write-misspelling her last name because some radio jock told them to.

So that supposed immaturity should be used to rationalize nullifying the vote of voters that voted in good faith.

That's some weak brew there.

If I were a judge I'd get the feeling Joe's lawyers were making a mockery of the court.

Revenant, I mean not looking for opportunities to cheat people out of their vote. That is vote stealing just as surely as ballot box stuffing or dead people voting.

Note that I draw a distinction between what is fair to the candidate (who has no right to office) and what is fair to the voter (who does have a right to have their preference counted so long as they show up).

(who does have a right to have their preference counted so long as they show up)

Actually, no, that's not correct. The U.S. Constitution leaves it to the state legislatures to decide what counts as a vote, and I don't believe any state (certainly not Alaska) has ever specified that a person's vote counts if they just "show up".

"Much further along in the thread Gabriel Hanna (Hana? Henna? Xhena?) makes another valid point. After all, nowhere in the Constitution does it say that one cannot fly directly over the Presidential Mansion because flying machines had not yet been invented."

One of the enumerated powers the government actually has is defense. So bzzzzzzzzzzzzt!

Given that Senator Muircowski decided to not accept the decision of the Republican voters in the Primary I think it is only fair that Joe Miller push all the buttons right up until he gets to be the US Senator or the judges have finished it all up and awarded the seat to Ms Mercrowski, or however she spells it.

Actually, no, that's not correct. The U.S. Constitution leaves it to the state legislatures to decide what counts as a vote, and I don't believe any state (certainly not Alaska) has ever specified that a person's vote counts if they just "show up".

Lance, I recommend you ask for your money back on your copy of the Constitution. It says no such thing. States control "time, place and manner" of voting. There are severe restrictions on their ability to disqualify a vote or voter.

Your suggestion that a person can be cheated out of his vote if he supports someone you don't is despicable.

I don't see how you can ascertain voter intent without perfect spelling when there are over 100 write-in candidates.

Also, if the law says you have to spell it right, then you have to spell it right. That may thwart some attempted votes, but that's why serious candidates try to get their names on the ballot rather than being write-ins.

So the standard has shifted from "'disenfranchising' people who didn't follow the law is bad" to "'disenfranchising' the people who didn't follow the law is fine, provided the number 'disenfranchised' is greater than X but less than Y, where X is the number of write-in votes for Miller and Y is the number of Murkowski voters who can't spell".

Well, goodness. I can see why we wouldn't want to do something as simple as obey the law. Doing it the "common sense" way allows for so many more billable hours. Democracy is best when decided by judges instead of ballots.

Note that I draw a distinction between what is fair to the candidate (who has no right to office) and what is fair to the voter (who does have a right to have their preference counted so long as they show up).

Well yes, if you define "fair" as exactly the circumstance's you're trying to defend then yes, big shocker, the circumstances you're trying to defend seem quite fair indeed.

My only question would be: why is the "showing up" restriction fair? We already allow accommodations for people who don't, e.g. absentee ballots. If it is "fair" to ignore the law and count the vote of a person who can't copy nine letters from one piece of paper to another, why isn't it "fair" to ignore the law and count the ballots of people who mailed them in after 11/2? Or the ballots of people who didn't register at all?

Why is "I'm sorry, I'm a moron" a valid reason to ignore the law? Can you plead gross stupidity to get out of a speeding ticket, too?

To be clear, if I were the Alaska officials I would not count Miller write-ins at this point in time as a matter of procedure.

You need to make sure that they weren't counted twice-once automatically by machine and then again if the voter also wrote in Joe Miller's name.

Then if it was up to me *personally* after making sure of that I would count the Joe Miller write-ins.

Sorry if that sours your day.

Again I was trying to point out to you that Miller is trying to have it both ways.

He wants the letter of the law and beyond when counting Murkowski votes then when it comes to counting write-in votes for himself he wants a waiver on the section of the statute that requires candidates to submit to the candidacy list by a certain deadline.

So the inconsistency is on him.

If I was the judge I'd say fine let's go with your original argument.

But I have no idea what the reams of law would be in this area.

I do know that Miller-is trying to have it both ways.

And I'll admit that I dislike the squirrelly type of guy who would sneak on to three of his fellow employees' computers during their lunch hour to do something that he wouldn't do on his own computer so that they could take the fall for it.

He then lied about it twice before admitting to all of it in writing in his own personnel file while acting as a lawyer for the city of Fairbanks.

So you would think he would learn that telling the truth as soon as possible would be the way to operate but given the chance again what did he do?

He stonewalled.

Great candidate you got yourself there-this guy is an embarrassment to West Point.

Agreed. I just find it amusing that FLS, Garage, RV, etc. even have an opinion here, and that it is so monolithically in support of the Corrupt Republican over the Outsider Republican.

Democrats want elections to represent the voice of the people; Republicans prefer to keep the riffraff from voting -- photo ID privileges drivers and penalizes the elderly, mailing letters to last registered address penalizes the homeless, etc.

The spelling requirement is eerily similar to the literacy tests that kept Southern blacks from voting for years.